posted
I want to start off this page with a simple statement of fact, Dean is going to be drubbed into a non-existent powder in 04. Bush has a huge direct fan base, hasn't screwed up yet, and is a war tiem president form the south. Dean is a loudmouthed extreme democrat, which loses him the moderates. And to top it off, his smile gives me the bejeebies. Dean is going to get wupped.
quote: BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Dean will not win. Bush would have to do something incredibly erroneous to lose the election, and while he's done plenty of things people may disagree with or argue about, it's not enough to get him unpopular enough to lose the election. This is not a case of two men competing for the position for the office from the relatively equal status of non-incumbancy. Bush has already had nearly four years, and by the time of the election, he'll have had roughly four years of time in the limelight. Dean, while quite popular as a Democratic frontrunner, was lesser known until the office of President got ready to come up for election.
Bush has three years of recognition ahead of Dean, and has made no tremendous blunders. Yes, he's made debatably bad decisions, none have had such extreme effects to change public opinion enough. In fact, Bush only has to claim that his results in Iraq have proved efficient in catching Hussein, and that the economy is recovering from the effects of 9/11. I find it hard to believe that any contender will find "evidence" sufficient to sway the public from agreeing to that (the level of "truth" to the claims nonwithstanding).
Well done old chap!
Dean will win the nomination, but he has no chance of the election. See the clinotn familie want Dean to get the nomination because they know he will lose, Hilary doesn't want to face an incumbant democrat for the whitehouse, so they will give Dean up as a sacrificial lamb. Because frankly, he would make a worse president than Sharpton, and thats bad.
[ January 05, 2004, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously folks - what moderate is going to look at Bush standing next to Dean in a debate and think Dean is the extremist? It's quite a bit different than Dean vs. Kerry, Lieberman, Clark, and Gephart.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, Bush is quite the moderate, Campaign Finance reform, the new Medicare Bill, and several others are extremely liberal.
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The campaign finance reform bill that Bush was using the threat of veto to try stopping (but didn't because of the political fallout)? You're trying to attribute that to Bush?!
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu13 - sure! Bush is an old hand at taking credit for things he opposed. Check out his speeches where he took credit for the Patients Bill of Rights bill in Texas. That's the one he fought and vetoed the first time through, which became law without his signature after it passed again with an overwhelming majority.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So your reasoning is its all right if Clinton did it? Good to know.
Also, Clinton at least declared support for the bill before it passed (and his administration had been consistently waivering states to implement the plan on their own, 30 states were waivered in his first term well before it came up as an election issue). Bush is grabbing credit for bills that passed despite his opposition.
posted
No - I just think it's hypocritical to decry it in one politician and not in another. The welfare reform bill was passed by the first Republican Congress in almost 50 years, yet Clinton tried to take credit for it.
The point is Bush signed the law. This is a moderating move for Bush, since the bill was supported by many members of the opposing party.
I'm not sure the person pointing out he was "moderate" because of this viewed the signing of the law as a good thing. I know I didn't. I'm not fond of my personal rights to speak out about an election being curtailed.
posted
Concerning Clinton, and other Democrats who have screwed up royally, I refer you to my earlier posts in these forums. I'm a registered Independent, I criticize everybody in government that fails the public trust, and I'm rarely bored.
Bush did, in fact, sign the Campaign Finance Reform Bill. He did it after arguing against it, and even after signing it he warned that the bill was fatally flawed and need revision. Most telling, he signed it with absolutely no fanfare, just him and Ari. When it's a bill he likes, he's got the entire cast of Chicago in there with him.
As it happens I also have reservations about the Campaign Finance Reform Bill, particularly around the free speech areas in the last month before elections. But that's not what I'm talking about.
A man who argues strenuously against something and then signs it into law still has integrity, he fought his fight and accepted the consequences. But a man who fights strenuously against something and then proudly takes credit for it later is two-faced and untrustworthy.
Bush is in not moderate. He just plays one on TV.
[ January 05, 2004, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to stick to the point would be to admit that the majority of people in the American public are likely to perceive those actions as moderate, whether you like the way he takes credit for them or not.
Fact: He signed the bill. Fact: Most people view the bill as a moderate bill. Conclusion: Bush will likely be able to sell himself as a moderate.
posted
Fact: My first post in this thread was to say that Bush would probably win, due to the public perception of him. I don't like this at all, but I've already predicted it.
But I can damn well try and hold him accountable to his own actions and his own claims. That's the fun part of being a registered and dependable voter.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush has signed many laws he opposed. Almost all of them, in fact. Same as every other US President. The veto is not used lightly by the President, which is a good thing.
You can't assert you supported a law when you put large efforts into opposing it until it became politically expedient to allow it into law. Its particularly hypocritical when you were saying you were going to veto it, as Bush was doing with the campaign reform package.
Saying he's moderate because he signed something is like saying "oh, just because he opposed it as much as he felt he could meant he supported it". Its ridiculous.
Also, I've already pointed out why Clinton's and welfare does not parallel Bush and Patient's Rights.
I do agree that he's being pretty successful at positioning himself as a moderate by lying about what he supported (sorry, implying he supported something because it passed while he was in office, despite him being so opposed to it he didn't even sign it!).
Being not against a bill enough to expend the (considerable) political capital involved in a veto is not support. One can oppose a bill, as Bush has done, and still sign it, without ever becoming a supporter.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
The Campaign Finance bill perfectly parallels the welfare reform bill - it (welfare reform) was passed as a result of the worst Democratic performance in congressional elections in 50 years. Clinton opposed the bill before that Congress was elected.
He supported it after 30 new Representatives were elected on a platform specifically including that bill. His change of heart came after the election and after the it was clear it was going to pass with veto-proof majorities (mainly because all the Democrats in the House and Senate saw the writing on the wall as well). The fact he didn't wait until the actual vote doesn't make his actions any less disingenuous.
posted
I disagree, not surprisingly. Anyways, its good to know that since you condemn so rousingly an action by Clinton that is *at worst* as bad as what Bush did, you will likewise condemn Bush's action.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm curious. You used the phrase "wrench the country into an oligarchal aristocratic paradise"... how exactly is that different from the present?
Right now, we get a choice between two wealthy, white, privileged, christian men almost exclusively. In lesser elections, we often get a choice between three or four of the same (with some variation).
Still, the aristocracy runs things, since the money runs things. And any country of 285 million that's run by an executive and legislative branch totaling less than 1000 people is pretty close to an oligarchy, no? At least in the strictest sense?
I mean, each senator represents, on average, 2.85 million people... and each representative represents, roughly, 650 thousand people. Seems we're ruled by a pretty small "few"... all of which are essentially part of a financial aristocracy, no?
So, I'm curious. If the current political situation threatens to "wrench the country into an oligarchal aristocratic paradise"... just what is it being wrenched away from?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, I'm still waiting for someone to point me to a link where Bush took credit for the campaign finance bill. When someone does, then I'll consider if what he did was as bad as what Clinton did with the welfare bill.
posted
FlyingCow - while I agree that a few hold power over the many, those few can still be held accountable for abuses of the system. At least, they can as long as they can still sue doctors and HMOs for malpractice (something that the administration is trying to weaken), as long as corporate malfeasance can be brought into court (something the administration is trying to weaken), as long as companies must adhere to ethical guidelines and environmental restrictions to keep them honest (which the administration has already weakened by appointing people staunchly opposed to regulation as the heads of the regulatory boards), as long as the government remains representative of all the people (something that the party in power tries to weaken by illegally redistricting to maintain their power, thereby overruling democracy), and as long as everyone is represented by those in power.
I no longer feel that my views are even being considered, much less represented, because I don't have 1.4 million to donate to a politician. While this is hardly a new phenomenon, it has rarely been so flagrant. The party in power now has so much power it swaggers, and it uses that power to cement its own permanence and push through programs I believe are harmful to our country. They don't need to worry about representing all the people, the deck has been stacked so they'll get elected anyway and they can do as they like.
This administration has done more to weaken the checks and balances in the country than any other in our history. Those checks and balances are what kept us honest, or at least reasonable.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To my knowledge, Bush has not taken credit for the campaign finance bill. Last time he did take credit for Texas' Patient Bill of Rights, which he also fought and vetoed, so I'll be watching his campaign speeches to see if he does it again this time.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris> The last I looked, both parties used redistricting to maintain their power wherever they had it--Democrats as often as Republicans. I certainly don't support it, but it doesn't seem to be an exclusively right-wing thing.
I won't ask for data on the middle two--you've probably produced plenty of it on threads when I wasn't around--but I'm curious why you think it's a good thing that people can sue doctors for all they're worth, and that even if they're wrong they end up raising everyone's medical bills so that doctors can keep paying their insurance.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Redistricting is indeed a bipartisan abuse. I'm referring to the recent Republican acts of redistricting outside of the legal schedules for it, at times guaranteed to improve their power base. This isn't just my opinion, the courts are still arguing over the most recent abuses.
And I don't support allowing people to sue their doctors for all they're worth. I support patients keeping the right to sue incompetent doctors for all they're worth. If a doctor makes a mistake and threatens my health I want the ability to seek redress. If that same doctor has made many such mistakes, I don't want him treating patients anymore. If the medical community would do more to cull their own incompetents I'd be in favor of stronger tort reform. You cna even make harsher penalties for frivolous lawsuits if you want, I don't want the courts tied up with money-grubbing con artists either. But every citizen of this country must have the right to seek justice.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's one, at CNN. Or go to google and type in "supreme court redistricting" or "texas redistricting" or "colorado redistricting" to see more sources.
Let me state that if Democrats were doing the same thing, and they've certainly tried to before, I would be just as aggravated.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dean's main problems are that he's been showing himself to be cynical and shallow, and does not seem to have good judgment in the things he chooses to mouth off about. General Wesley Clark would be a far better candidate to run against Bush, but he is too moderate to be nominated by the Democratic party.
Dean's only hope is to pick Clark as his running mate.
I predict that Bush will beat Dean 60% to 40% (discounting votes for splinter candidates), and will still beat Dean even if Dean picks Clark for a running mate, though it would be closer, 55% to 45%. Too bad we don't vote for vice presidents separately.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, the oligarchy is held in check by the potential for litigation? Maybe I'm not understanding. If that is true, then the wealthy are only held in check by those wealthy enough to hire lawyers to sue them. So, the financial aristocracy is only accountable to themselves.
That doesn't do much to make me believe we aren't already living in an oligarchical society where those without money have any true say. Even the fact that we can vote people out of office is limited by the other candidates available. To give a nod to Orwell, sure, you can vote out Napoleon, but if your only other choices for rulership are pigs, what good does it do you?
I can't elect Joe Schmoe upstanding citizen for anything, regardless of how good he may be. I need the backing of the financial aristocracy to run his campaign, and they give their money only if they feel it betters their interests.
Might the problem not be the politicians but the existence of parties at all? Parties exist as fundraising institutions primarily at this point - the idea of a unified platform went the way of the dodo once reliable high speed communication became possible. No longer is it "this is our platform for helping the country, we're all behind it, so vote the party line!"... it's become an Us v. Them mentality, each trying to raise more money than the other and rally more support.
It seems that they're shoring themselves up in respective bunkers to fire at one another, while leaving much othe country in the wasteland between.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tried "Texas redistricting" and got a bunch of useless links, not much more. Some guy's blog that had a little info. Thanks for the linkage.
There were indications that the Republicans were only trying to redress the balance after the Democrats recently did the same thing, but it was hard to tell from the blog, what with everyone posting random details and opinions.
I wonder what, exactly, constitutes inappropriate districting. It's possible to imagine the party in the majority trying to change a bad district distribution and having it called gerrymandering--say, if much of their support is concentrated in some large cities. I'm just thinking here--I'm not saying this is what's going on.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: There were indications that the Republicans were only trying to redress the balance after the Democrats recently did the same thing,
The redistricting issue is a very interesting one. Mac, you are correct in saying that the republicans were cleaning up a democrat mess. In recent history it has become acceptable to gerrymander the districts to include more people of a certain race or ethnicity. You will a district made of 10 block by 10 block area, then annexed to it is a 1 block by 5 block corridor, in which mostly minority voters live. This is done to give special benefits to democrat voters. This enables them to stack the local and state governments.
Also this decides who is handling the votes on election day, which we see is still important. In Florida there were 4 majorly democrat counties that tried there damnedest to recount Al Gore a victory.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
FC: that's why there are class action suits. Also the Better Business Bureau, the ACLU, workers' unions, and other organizations that help keep companies honest (and yes, all have their problems as well).
Locally there was a congressperson (Dem) who mapped her district to include several miles of a single street so she could connect two large blocs of black voters. I don't like it when anybody does it, and I don't think that the people who benefit from redistricting should be the ones to draw the map. In my "solve your problems for a dollar" thread, which I may have to resurrect if I keep ranting, I suggested forcing equal square districts to be mapped by grid. Politicians would be bound to represent everyone in their district, not just the ones who voted for them.
[ January 06, 2004, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, Mr. Vice President, it's not true. I do support a national patient's bill of rights. As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the State of Texas to get a patient's bill of rights through. It requires a different kind of leadership style to do it, though. You see, in order to get something done on behalf of the people, you have to put partisanship aside, and that's what we did in my state.
And then he goes on to describe the benefits of said bill. Seems to me he's practically implying he pushed the whole gosh-darned bill through.
Interesting to note his justification when he vetoed them was that they would be too costly to business. In particular note that one of the clauses he most talks about never got his signature despite receiving a veto-proof majority.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He stands some humanly chance, but not enough IMO. I'm really tired of the current administration's dangerous and expensive circus. The moment Dean gets the nomination, he needs to start playing like a real candidate. At the very least, he needs to back up his mouth with facts. Everything that he's said to get him in trouble, he's been right about, but he says them in a way that pisses off everyone.
Hopefully he remembers that he once was Governor of Vermont, and all of the behavior that entailed. He was a very decent governor and he did a lot of good things for the state in the 90's.
Most of the hype about Dean rasing taxes is actually undoing Bush's tax cuts. When Bush was campaigning, it was a cool idea because there was this big surplus thingie and lots of people made money off of the internet. Just before he was elected, that world fell apart, and that surplus dissapeared. Now the U.S. is holding two countries and spending lots of money it doesn't have. It would be nice to get back to the mostly-balanced budget we had in the 90's, wouldn't it?
What I really want is for some candidate to come down hard on social security. It'd be a death sentance for them, I know, but the program is gunna implode or something in the next ten years if something isn't done about it. And, to be honest, I'm really tired of paying into a system that I'm never going to get anything out of.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: What I really want is for some candidate to come down hard on social security. It'd be a death sentance for them, I know, but the program is gunna implode or something in the next ten years if something isn't done about it. And, to be honest, I'm really tired of paying into a system that I'm never going to get anything out of.
My question to you is how do you support raising income taxes back up? You aren't getting much from that investment either, why is that okay, but SS isn't?
Dean seems to support creating a pay-as-you-go national healthcare system on-top of all the other entitlement programs we have. Is this something you are willing to fund out of your check every week?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, this might be the first time the Democratic candidate is the small-government choice. Now they're saying the budget deficit for this year alone may be over $500 BILLION! I just keep wondering why fiscal conservatives still stand for it.
posted
What choice does a fiscal conservative have when considering Bush or Dean? As I mentioned above, Dean has plans to massively increase the federal govt.'s role in everyone's lives. There are no small government candidates. Bush rammed through the Rx drug bill which is an affront to the "General Welfare" clause. We are not safe from socialism in this country, it comes from all sides.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A fiscal conservative doesn't necessarily oppose government expenditure, he opposes government waste, and government debt (beyond that which is healthy).
Its perfectly in line with fiscal conservatism to raise taxes in face of a massive deficit.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The last I looked, both parties used redistricting to maintain their power wherever they had it--Democrats as often as Republicans. I certainly don't support it, but it doesn't seem to be an exclusively right-wing thing.
